polyill wrote:Honorable KitemanSA and Dan Tibbets,
Would you please take the war of the worlds to another, dedicated thread?
It's a source of eternal amusement and aesthetic delight to me, but, really does it belong here?
One of the points of this thread is measuring Rossi's public impact by counting the pages of the thread, remember?
You are distorting the stats, gents.
Indeed, for a small time, we did. Chrismb started one. Dan did some calculations (incorrectly) that proported to show that the reaction in question (p+62Ni=63Cu) was endothermic. I corrected his math in that thread. He thanked me, which (foolish me) made me think he finally understood.
Some time later he made the same incorrect statement in this thread again, I corrected him again, and we were off and running again.
And while I agree it is getting (nay, has gotten) tedious, it is related to the fundamental reaction in question so I consider it on topic.
Oh, and by the way, I recommended to Dan that he start a poll on the topic. He hasn't, but there is nothing to prevent YOU from doing it. Maybe that will shift the discussion to that topic.
KitemanSA wrote:...
Oh, and by the way, I recommended to Dan that he start a poll on the topic. He hasn't, but there is nothing to prevent YOU from doing it. Maybe that will shift the discussion to that topic....
...and in the words of the immortal TV series The Apprentice, '... and one of you gentlemen, WILL be fired!'
personally i have no idea.
i too recommend we put the matter to popular vote and decide upon this important fact of the universe. Let the wisdom of the ignorant prevail.
KitemanSA wrote:...
Oh, and by the way, I recommended to Dan that he start a poll on the topic. He hasn't, but there is nothing to prevent YOU from doing it. Maybe that will shift the discussion to that topic....
...and in the words of the immortal TV series The Apprentice, '... and one of you gentlemen, WILL be fired!'
personally i have no idea.
i too recommend we put the matter to popular vote and decide upon this important fact of the universe. Let the wisdom of the ignorant prevail.
There is an interesting phenomenon with different names depending on who you ask, but if you ask 1000 people who have stated they DON'T know when the Battle of Hastings took place to give their best guess, they, as a group, do know. It is usually called the Delphi phenomenon. It improves with discussion and repolling.
Joseph Chikva wrote:
But it is very weak position, my friend. If you worry on Polywell as you wrote in that ban request, idea can not be killed with criticism. Certainly if that idea is viable.
regards
It is not appropriate to argue whether Polywell is viable in EVERY thread. If you don't think it viable, then post a thread with a description of why you don't think it viable rather than poisoning a simple patent discussion with your disjointed thoughts on overall viability.
I said that you derail threads. There is not slander in that. Sadly, you do.
It is the same thing I am saying here. You are posting nothing interesting except badly translated sarcasm and insults to other people's intelligence.
And this is coming from someone who is actually on the same side of the Rossi argument as you.
For a normal person, hearing this would be a wakeup call. For you, apparently not.
You said slander. It is not insult when advise somebody to learn something that he does not know now.
For your note you beloved Chrismb wrote me:
It is for you to show what you want to, but if you do not know physics basics (and want someone else to spoon feed you) then you are not going to be able to show anything.
in December 13. There was about 5th post.
Whence he knew that I don't know physics basics?
I did not answer him with insult. But only argued my statements and only said that he speaks nonsenses. Or in the other words I said truth.
Then learning more about crismb and his baggage (knowledge) I advised him to study before discussion. As exactly his knowledge is very limited.
I am asking you now: why I have not right to advice and why crismb has that right? Why do you mean that I insulted someone with my advise and crismb did not calling me for example Mr. Arse?
Should I do the same – something like “fu…k mo…r” or something else?
Betruger wrote:What you should do is learn proper english.
Ok, I will.
December 13 2010 Pardon April 25 I was mistaken
You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy and I say you need to read up around that subject to be able to ask good questions.
chrismb wrote:You appear to have misunderstood the relationship of 'fusion cross section'/'collision cross section'/energy and I say you need to read up around that subject to be able to ask good question
chrismb wrote:I pointed you at Gamow quantum tunneling, so go make sure you understand this, then post something intelligible
chrismb wrote:Your discussion suggests a lack of basic understanding of fusion reactions. I have already tried to explain this to you, so will attempt to do so one last time.
chrismb wrote:Start doing some reading, and some maths. This is no good. Your are not making any progress with your understanding of fusion.
So fu..k his foolish mot..r together with moms of all his friends.
Hope that is well understood English.
Joseph Chikva wrote:
So fu..k his foolish mot..r together with moms of all his friends.
Hope that is well understood English.
At last the boil is lanced!
(It took enough prodding.!)
C'mon, Mr Chickenrashwilly, don't be bashful now!..
That's just unacceptable.
Yes. Unacceptable, and Joseph was also unacceptable. BTW, chrismb, if you must Anglicize DeGisi (DuhGeesey), why not translate it instead. It means Hawkson.
D Tibbets wrote: The outputs of the exothermic reactions are ~ similar to what has actually been measured (D-T fusion, Ur fission), . This validates that this approach to determining output is reasonable. There is some variation, but this is a gross estimate based on the binding energy alone. It ignores the weak force, and various stabilities of differing isotopes (the neutron portion), excited isomer states, etc.
Here are the numbers for ALL the isotopes of Ni and Cu.
At the very low "n" count, reaction is in fact ENDOthermic. But starting at 55Ni+p=56Cu the reaction turns slightly EXOthermic and gets more-so with added neutrons.
Note that the row labled p/n shows the neutrons in each nucleus (protons down, neutrons in the row). The rows labled 28 are Ni and 29 are Cu. The rows labeled keV are the binding energy change (positive = energy RELEASED) for Ni>Cu with that number of neutrons.
